LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Nigello]

Reply from Alleyn?s over its attitude to travelling to school

The School places high priority on encouraging pupils and staff to choose active travel when coming to School. As shown in the travel to School surveys that we run at least once a year, we have seen a significant shift towards walking, cycling and scooting to School.

We encourage active travel in the following ways.

Messaging to pupils, staff, parents and visitors. For example, assemblies, eco-council and messages to parents

Investment in facilities. For example, new staff showers, more bike racks each year and bike covers, new bike repair stations

Participations in and organisation of various events. For example, Walk to School Week, bike servicing days, Bikeability cycle training, Hillsboro Road School Street.

In terms of mass transport, around 350 of our pupils use our coach service, while about 150 or so take the train. We very recently lobbied the train operating companies serving North Dulwich station for more timely train services during their temporary timetable arrangement.

8% of our Senior School pupils travel to School by car, down from 13% two years ago.

Active travel among our Junior School pupils has increased. In the most recent survey in November, 155 out of 239 cycle, scoot or walk, equating to 65%. Four years ago the figure was 43%.

Our staff body, as a whole, tends to come to School from further away and driving is a little more prevalent. However, we are seeing good gains here too. 49% either cycle, walk or scoot, up from 37% two years ago. Driving is becoming less common. We plan to run another staff survey later this month to see if there has been any further change in habits since last year.

Visitors to School, including sports teams, are encouraged to choose active travel via the travel page on the Alleyn?s website.

I hope this gives a flavour of what we are involved in. Of course, we will continue our efforts in this important area.

[northernmonkey]

Its great to see those improving numbers but also relevant that for example in the junior school 95 kids are driven daily. Lets generously assume some are siblings and say 70 cars , twice a day. For reference, the queues of traffic at the EDG traffic lights are generally less than 20 cars. Again for the senior school, at an absolute level that is good work - especially the reduction and this should be recognised, but in absolute terms there are a lot of car journeys still being generated.

I'd imagine that the ones remaining are the 'harder to switch' ones. Perhaps its time therefore for stronger measures around the schools - larger school street areas and more restrictions on drop offs but combined with the often discussed 'park and stride' arrangements being implemented. Sainsburys car park and Dulwich Park have previously been suggested and neither is too far from Alleyns / JAGS - there also the evidence about how activity on a morning can improve concentration and academic performance so could be a win on that front too.

I think that there needs to be an acceptance that stopping parents dropping off by car is impractical but putting in place more proactive measures to mitigate the effects could be a real benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting the overall model for the schools.

[legalalien]

I agree with the measures you suggest northernmonkey.

It would also be interesting to know whether the survey figures reflect those who always cycle etc, or those who mostly cycle etc. If those saying they are cycling etc are only cycling and so on 60% of the time, that?s a lot more car journeys than the figures would suggest. I?d be surprised if there weren?t a fair few people using active transport on days when it?s sunny and they don?t have lots of kit to drag along or an after school activity further away, or on days when a parent is working from home, but driving on the days when that isn?t the case / the parent needs to go on to somewhere else.

[richard tudor]

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Its great to see those improving numbers but also

> relevant that for example in the junior school 95

> kids are driven daily. Lets generously assume

> some are siblings and say 70 cars , twice a day.

> For reference, the queues of traffic at the EDG

> traffic lights are generally less than 20 cars.

> Again for the senior school, at an absolute level

> that is good work - especially the reduction and

> this should be recognised, but in absolute terms

> there are a lot of car journeys still being

> generated.

>

> I'd imagine that the ones remaining are the

> 'harder to switch' ones. Perhaps its time

> therefore for stronger measures around the schools

> - larger school street areas and more restrictions

> on drop offs but combined with the often discussed

> 'park and stride' arrangements being implemented.

> Sainsburys car park and Dulwich Park have

> previously been suggested and neither is too far

> from Alleyns / JAGS - there also the evidence

> about how activity on a morning can improve

> concentration and academic performance so could be

> a win on that front too.

>

> I think that there needs to be an acceptance that

> stopping parents dropping off by car is

> impractical but putting in place more proactive

> measures to mitigate the effects could be a real

> benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting

> the overall model for the schools.

Will Southwark Council charge for parents who have children at the above schools to park or will it be another perk most of us will not be entitled to have should we want to use the park for personnel use?

[first mate]

>But this shifts the problem of parents parking elsewhere doesn't it? The idea seems to be that we must accept that inconvenienced parents may need to use cars and that is okay so long as they drop off further away from the school, but those living closer to the school who for other reasons may also be massively inconvenienced at not being able to use a car must get on with it? Is this essentially what you mean?

> I think that there needs to be an acceptance that

> stopping parents dropping off by car is

> impractical but putting in place more proactive

> measures to mitigate the effects could be a real

> benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting

> the overall model for the schools.

[heartblock]

On my walk home from Herne Hill station I passed at least 5 cars parked picking up JAGs and Alleyns children, some with bikes and scooters...so during a ten minute part of my walk. I had to dodge quite a few of them on the pavement.....I do wonder how many the schools count as 'active travel' because they arrive by bike, scooter or on foot?

[northernmonkey]

I'm assuming that the cars don't teleport to the school in the first place and therefore having a drop off point north and south of the schools would take parents who were essentially passing anyway - We appear to be in a bizarre arrangement whereby people apparently want less traffic, but without actually having any measures to limit traffic.

Heartblock - on the do the kids who are picked up in a car but scoot to it counted in the numbers - don't know, but can only really apply when they're tiny as otherwise getting the bike in the car would be a faff. Perhaps its kids who cycle in but are picked up by a different parent - hard to tell really, but making it harder to pick up near the schools feels like a good solution to prevent driving in any case.

On the Dulwich park 'parking' - id assume that if you drop off, then no charge, if you stay, you pay - in much the same way as it exists for everyone else!

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >But this shifts the problem of parents parking

> elsewhere doesn't it? The idea seems to be that we

> must accept that inconvenienced parents may need

> to use cars and that is okay so long as they drop

> off further away from the school, but those living

> closer to the school who for other reasons may

> also be massively inconvenienced at not being able

> to use a car must get on with it? Is this

> essentially what you mean?

>

> > I think that there needs to be an acceptance

> that

> > stopping parents dropping off by car is

> > impractical but putting in place more proactive

>

> > measures to mitigate the effects could be a real

>

> > benefit to the local area, whilst not affecting

>

> > the overall model for the schools.

[Rockets]

I just finally got round to filling in the council questionnaire and it really saddened me to see the botched mess the council has made of a once in a lifetime opportunity to actually do something positive about pollution and climate change. As I waded through the myriad of leading questions desperately trying to garner my support for more measures and CPZs I couldn't help but think how did they get themselves into this mess where the only option I have is to register a vote to return the measures to their previous state.

This is an abject lesson in how not to do things. The council have let us all down - they have failed everyone on both sides of the debate massively, divided our community and have created more pollution and congestion than ever before. I might write a book: Southwark Council and the LTN folly.....

[heartblock]

The huge SUVs that pick up kids and park on Village Way SE21 could accommodate a small pony! But I'm not sure the size of child and scooter/bike is that important? It's more that the 'active travel' at the school gate isn't always so active.

[malumbu]

I've been passing Goodrich and Heber school this week, obviously by bike, and congestion isn't too bad at 8.50, certainly better than, say, Francis Cabrini. But it always amazes me that there is the occasional parent/carer that just has to get as near as possible, irrespective of annoyances such as double yellow lines.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I do wonder whether some have forgotten what the roads were like pre-COVID:

Although it gets stated as fact that traffic is much worse now, I think it's highly debatable. Some independent (London wide) data here: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/london-traffic/

[heartblock]

I do like the ....'the roads were busy with illegal levels of pollution before the LTNs so it doesn't matter if they are now even worse'... statements by the 'LTNs at any cost' lobby to people living on ED Grove, LL, Grove Vale and Croxted.

Surely the worst polluted roads and areas with illegal levels of pollution should be the primary priority of any council? Especially the ones with schools, nurseries and health centres?

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do like the ....'the roads were busy with

> illegal levels of pollution before the LTNs so it

> doesn't matter if they are now even worse'...

> statements by the 'LTNs at any cost' lobby to

> people living on ED Grove, LL, Grove Vale and

> Croxted.

>

> Surely the worst polluted roads and areas with

> illegal levels of pollution should be the primary

> priority of any council? Especially the ones with

> schools, nurseries and health centres?

Don't know whether that's directed at me (as it follows on from my post) or not, but the point I was making was that I haven't actually seen evidence that things are worse on main road now than pre-covid. Certainly the videos above and the data on congestion levels I linked to don't suggest so. We need to tackle the problem of pollution on main roads. Making it as easy as possible to drive around the area by car and creating more pollution across more streets doesn't do it. The idea that it's 'fairer' if there are high levels of pollution everywhere seems perverse and doesn't help anyone imo.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I accept that it really comes down to whether or not you believe there is heavy congestion now that didn't' exist pre LTNS. This assessment is not helped by Southwark's failure to actually baseline, and COVID / lockdowns (the latter has made the former more difficult of course). But I don't buy the picture being painted by some of clear streets and clean air on the main roads that apparently existed up until the introduction LTNS.

In the areas where councils have bowed to pressure and removed LTNs, it's made no discernible difference to congestion on main roads.

[Rockets]

The issue is there were always traffic hot spots, and yes Calton junction with DV was one of them but that was more due to the meddling the council did to try and fix the problem and it just made it worse than it had ever been (and that was validated by their own monitoring that showed that after they made changes to the junction it was more polluted and more congested than it had been before).

What I find so disingenuous about those types of twitter posts is that no-one wants traffic, no-one actively wants pollution and congestion - we all want less pollution and less congestion yet what those posts fail to acknowledge (and actually most pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge) is that removing traffic from one place and moving it somewhere else doesn't solve the problem it makes it worse.

It's almost as if Clean Air Dulwich wants people to believe that since the closures went in EVERYWHERE is a car-free nirvana. It's not. They know that, we know that but they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it.

For every 2015 - 2019 video they produce someone on Croxted Road or East Dulwich Grove or Underhill or Lordship lane could produce one highlighting how much worse things are there since the arrival of the LTNs.

I want less traffic for all - not a small section of our community and all those videos do is suggest groups like Clean Air Dulwich are concerned about is protecting the car-free nirvana they negotiated with the council at other people's expense....

[Rockets]

I thought there must have been a protest/demo of some kind when I saw a big group of cyclists being led to Dulwich Square on Sunday - not, ahem, convinced that the headline is entirely accurate that it was all Dulwich families - not many of them seemed to know where they were going.....;-)

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/dulwich-families-get-on-their-bikes-to-show-support-for-safe-cycling-routes/

[heartblock]

Without a doubt people living on EDGrove, LL, Grove Vale and Croxted are suffering more and longer periods of idling traffic since the 5 LTNs went in. The constant denial of our lived experience is tedious and for vulnerable people dangerous. I know that Rosamund Kissi Debra is constantly trolled .... even attempts at no platforming her due to her lived experience of LTNs causing even more pollution and traffic on the roads that contributed to her loss.

Please stop telling us we are either lying, have some sort of perception issue or that we are so dim we can?t recognise an increase in idling traffic. Even the council in its traffic report pre-Covid stated that traffic WOULD increase and congestion WOULD increase on our roads as a result of other rd closures.

I would have some passing respect for people if they were honest and just admitted that they know that there is an increase in congestion, but they think the benefits for the LTN residents is worth our sacrifice.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The issue is there were always traffic hot spots,

> and yes Calton junction with DV was one of them

> but that was more due to the meddling the council

> did to try and fix the problem and it just made it

> worse than it had ever been (and that was

> validated by their own monitoring that showed that

> after they made changes to the junction it was

> more polluted and more congested than it had been

> before).

>

> What I find so disingenuous about those types of

> twitter posts is that no-one wants traffic, no-one

> actively wants pollution and congestion - we all

> want less pollution and less congestion yet what

> those posts fail to acknowledge (and actually most

> pro-LTN lobby fail to acknowledge) is that

> removing traffic from one place and moving it

> somewhere else doesn't solve the problem it makes

> it worse.

>

> It's almost as if Clean Air Dulwich wants people

> to believe that since the closures went in

> EVERYWHERE is a car-free nirvana. It's not. They

> know that, we know that but they steadfastly

> refuse to acknowledge it.

>

> For every 2015 - 2019 video they produce someone

> on Croxted Road or East Dulwich Grove or Underhill

> or Lordship lane could produce one highlighting

> how much worse things are there since the arrival

> of the LTNs.

>

> I want less traffic for all - not a small section

> of our community and all those videos do is

> suggest groups like Clean Air Dulwich are

> concerned about is protecting the car-free nirvana

> they negotiated with the council at other people's

> expense....

This is the fundamental disagreement I think - whether you believe that the number of car journeys are predetermined / immutable. Personally, I think (in fact I know from my own experience) that there is often an element of choice about whether or not to use the car (obviously not always, but for a great number of short journeys, which many car trips in London are). So by making it is more pleasant / safer to walk or cycle and less pleasant / convenient to drive, you can reduce the number of car journeys overall. There is lot's of evidence for this kind of behaviour change being possible (although I accept that doesn't necessarily mean that any particular measure of this type may be effective).

I have witnessed the huge increase in the number of people walking and cycling to my kids gym class for example. It used to be absolute chaos previously, with lot's of cars trying to drop off and this has massively changed. It's anecdote I know, but nevertheless It's my experience.

I personally haven't seen a huge increase in congestion on main roads, compared to pre-COVID. I remember EDG being carnage in the mornings previously - I used to walk that way in rush hour. I previously travelled to work on the bus from Lordship Lane also and it was always jammed in the mornings - that was a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, Southwark have not gathered any baseline data prior to introducing LTNS, but the London wide data doesn't suggest the massive increase in congestion some claim has been ushered in by car reduction measures such as LTNs. In Wandsworth, where LTNs were taken out because of concerns about displacement onto main roads, it's made no discernible difference to rush our congestion. It's simply encouraged people to drive, and the excess road capacity was filled almost immediately. Again, there is lots of evidence that increasing road capacity increases the number of journeys (with same caveat as above). Tooting just has busy main roads AND people rat running side streets.

I do appreciate that there will be a certain degree of confirmation bias on both sides of this debate when it comes to subjective assessments of traffic levels. It's really regrettable that the approach to this hasn't involved better data gathering. But if you look back at videos taken of the main streets pre-LTNs, or look at air quality data (the little that there is admittedly), it certainly doesn't paint a picture of a new problem that's been created by the introduction of LTNs.

[legalalien]

Have just received the message below. Seems the provision of data is being delayed. Love the last part with the assertion that the process is robust, fair and inclusive. We?ll see. (As my grandfather used to say, self-praise is no recommendation).

Dear all

Thank you for registering to attend the Dulwich Community Meeting this Saturday at 2pm. The link to access this meeting is https://zoom.us/j/93950973013

Meeting ID: 939 5097 3013

Passcode: 364163

Please note: It had been our intention to have a section of Saturday?s meeting to consider initial data reports to inform the discussion as progression from our earlier meetings. Feedback from our previous meetings made clear people wanted to have more time to share their experiences of the measures across the wider Dulwich area and to discuss areas of concern. There was also a need to have meaningful comparative data shared and explained. Being able to meet both those requests in one public meeting in a constructive way would be unlikely.

Therefore our sharing of important data, to help inform residents and ensure a constructive discussion, is being amended to allow for two additional data specific meetings that will be focused on both the outcome of Saturday?s meeting and feedback from our earlier sessions. This will allow proper time, across all meetings for opinions and experiences to be shared from our estates, streets and roads within and outside the Dulwich trial area. Details of these additional meetings will be given shortly and you will be able to register for these events in advance.

The format of Saturday?s meeting will be different to the previous ones we have held. After an initial presentation giving the background to the Dulwich Review and the Streetspace measures, we will be bringing people into a number of ?breakout rooms? where we hope to have more in-depth discussion of people?s concerns and suggestions. Themes to discuss will be:-

1. What aims should we have for highways measures in the Dulwich area?

2. In what ways have the existing schemes worked / not worked?

3. Going forward, how do we develop the roads in Dulwich to achieve our aims and create a healthier future for the whole Dulwich area.

Saturday remains an opportunity for you to hear about the purpose and objectives of traffic measures; the process we are undertaking to monitor and evaluate the success of them against those objectives and it also provides more time to share your views and to work towards some constructive ways forward.

The additional new sessions specifically informed by data and the feedback so far, will provide even more opportunity to have your voice heard. This review process is robust, fair and inclusive.

Kind regards,

Southwark Highways

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Without a doubt people living on EDGrove, LL,

> Grove Vale and Croxted are suffering more and

> longer periods of idling traffic since the 5 LTNs

> went in. The constant denial of our lived

> experience is tedious and for vulnerable people

> dangerous. I know that Rosamund Kissi Debra is

> constantly trolled .... even attempts at no

> platforming her due to her lived experience of

> LTNs causing even more pollution and traffic on

> the roads that contributed to her loss.

>

> Please stop telling us we are either lying, have

> some sort of perception issue or that we are so

> dim we can?t recognise an increase in idling

> traffic. Even the council in its traffic report

> pre-Covid stated that traffic WOULD increase and

> congestion WOULD increase on our roads as a result

> of other rd closures.

>

> I would have some passing respect for people if

> they were honest and just admitted that they know

> that there is an increase in congestion, but they

> think the benefits for the LTN residents is worth

> our sacrifice.

I'm not suggesting anyone is lying. I think that we have been through a long period of lockdown during which traffic was significantly down. It is possible that traffic has increased above pre-COVIOD levels now and that LTNS are responsible. I am not convinced that is the case, although I can't say categorically that it's not. What I do think is that any change is not an indisputable fact / as self evident or undeniable as often suggested. It's a shame we don't have better data as I suspect there is naturally going to be a degree of confirmation bias on both sides of the argument. It's possible for people to have different views / perceptions without anyone being a 'liar'.

[legalalien]

Just seen on Twitter that Southwark Cyclists are advising their followers to respond to the consultation in ways that include advocating for a modal filter in Red Post Hill. Really hoping all these plans involve a new hospital somewhere as this is a key route to Kings for staff/ anyone not in an ambulance. It?s bad enough with the timed closures on DV. Can it not be ALL about cycle routes?

ETA I do wonder if this links into the email exchanges back in November when Southwark sprang the Phase 2 closures on TfL. Just checked back and it was during a telephone discussion about Red Post Hill that TfL seems to have expressed concern that Southwark had neglected to tell TfL that the closures were going in (notice given on Thursday for Monday implementation). See attached.

[Rockets]

Legal...ha ha...the process is robust, fair and inclusive...I think the council is trying to convince themselves it is...

It probably isn't surprising that they aren't sharing any data at the meeting....everything they have done in this process has been shambolic. Alternatively maybe it is because they have to yet work out a way to cut the data to give them the outcome they want! ;-)

Also the break-out rooms idea is absurd...what if you have an opinion on more than one of the subjects? Reeks of trying to divide and conquer if you ask me.

This council is utterly out of their depth and seems to be making it all up as they go along.

[Rockets]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just seen on Twitter that Southwark Cyclists are

> advising their followers to respond to the

> consultation in ways that include advocating for a

> modal filter in Red Post Hill. Really hoping all

> these plans involve a new hospital somewhere as

> this is a key route to Kings for staff/ anyone not

> in an ambulance. It?s bad enough with the timed

> closures on DV. Can it not be ALL about cycle

> routes?

>

> ETA I do wonder if this links into the email

> exchanges back in November when Southwark sprang

> the Phase 2 closures on TfL. Just checked back and

> it was during a telephone discussion about Red

> Post Hill that TfL seems to have expressed concern

> that Southwark had neglected to tell TfL that the

> closures were going in (notice given on Thursday

> for Monday implementation). See attached.

Southwark Cyclists won't be happy until they have complete cycle domination and every non cycle vehicle has been eliminated...

All joking aside it will be interesting to see how Southwark manages the views of residents over non-residents in the review. The council seems to be more interested in, and actively encouraging, the views of the people who night occasionally pass through the area over those who have to live here.

[Earl Aelfheah]

One thing I think everyone can probably agree on, is that the lack of data / baselining and ongoing monitoring is extremely unhelpful.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - we can. It's been an utter mess and massively weakens the council's position in terms of trustworthiness.

Do you remember when they put the monitoring strips only on the closed roads at the outset? I think that shows what they were interested in proving.

If the council was an actual business people would have been fired by now for the shambolic nature of how they have gone about it.